"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...
Michael 182 wrote:
This head in the sand view is just astonishing. This isn't a
liberal/conservative thing. As much as you would like to blame Clinton
for
the collapse (if you are a republican) or congratulate him for the boom
(if
you are a democrat), the reality is no economic policy result is neatly
encapsulated within the political boundaries of a presidential term.

Not sure what you mean by "This head in the sand view..." I agree that
economic cycles are not contained within any given presidential term but
the president does have some influence. Clinton could have encouraged
the SEC to enforce the existing securities laws and perhaps diminished
the enormous amount of money fleeced from individual stockholders by
investment banks; Bush could use his veto to dampen the drunken
spending compulsions of congress.

If Clinton had done that the recession would have been apearant sooner.
When Rubin split in '98 the gamming of the system began in earnest. I don't
believe Rubin is all that ethical, but he is not a criminal; so he bailed.